I think this is a very counterproductive attitude. It shuts down the possibility of all art and science till we hit the goal of “nobody starves.” But then it is super easy to move those goalposts. “Nobody is homeless”, “nobody is poor”, “nobody is suffering” and so on.

And it is this very science that has provided so much more wealth and quality of life. Without it we would still be blown in the winds of famines and plagues.

So you could say, no science that does not solve plagues. But then we would not have funded Computer Science and we would not have AlphaFold. You could say no to astronomy, deciding it is specifically worthless, but then you might be saying no to the fundamental physics discovery that doubles global carrying capacity or solves green energy production.

This is also very much ignoring the fact that hunger is political, not technical or financial. We have plenty of food, but no way to distribute it in a politically tenable way.

True, but achieving that sustainably is a problem at least 2 orders of magnitude more difficult. Let's take the wins where we can.

How is that going to meet scientific goals?

So feed them.